What's worse?

[joeb]

The Lakers only being 2-4 vs above .500 teams..

...or the fact that they've only played 6 games against above .500 teams?

To contrast, the Spurs are 8-2, Dallas is 9-3 and Boston 9-2.

Favorable schedule (again) and still not getting it done.

I won't even mention that fact that the Lakers have the least number of back-to-back games this year. OK, I guess I will 

[Fafnir]

Eh scheduling evens out in the end as far as SoS. The real favoritism in the schedule is based on how your games are structured. How many back to backs, how many four games in five days, and how often you get to play other teams who are on those tough stretches.

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2010/11/unnecessarily-comprehensive-and-overdue.html

That link takes you to a post that analyzes this sort of thing.

[cdif911]

Eh scheduling evens out in the end as far as SoS. The real favoritism in the schedule is based on how your games are structured. How many back to backs, how many four games in five days, and how often you get to play other teams who are on those tough stretches.

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2010/11/unnecessarily-comprehensive-and-overdue.html

That link takes you to a post that analyzes this sort of thing.

agreed, back to backs for a team like the C's are a killer (though lately they've handled it) - the Lakers are the real deal and I fully expect Celtics Lakers part III (of the new millenium) come spring